True digital slr in the near future

P

psync

is anyone aware or know if Minolta will be seriously introducing a digital slr in the maxxum line? Over the years, I've invested heavily on lens and don't like the idea of switching to Nikon at the moment. Monday, I'll be ordering a new Fuji S2 body because of price and resolution needs, and considering how much it cost its definetly a better camera than Minolta's DiMage. I own a Maxxum 9xi and love this camera and use it all the time with the 85 f/1.4 lens and my new tamron 28-75 f/2.8; however, I'm moving to digital like most other people I know AND want to use my extensive collection of lenses including the 300 f/2.8. I'm just feeling sick thinking about replacing all those bodies and lenses with Nikons. Understand, this isn't about disliking Minolta but more of my wallet regretting my decision for Minolta over Nikon 15 years ago. If, howver, Minolta will introduce a digital slr in the next few months, that'll be a different story. I'll just consider the Fuji S2 a good investment for the specialized Nikon lens.
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Except for the 85mm f/1.4, you can go TAMRON all the way for your lenses -- at least you don't have to give ALL you money to only Nikon or Fuji (or Canon for those who like Canon)!

What do you think of the Olympus 4/3rd system - 5 mp in a larger sensor, yet smaller lenses?

Also, tell us WHY digital capture AND interchangeable lenses is important to you.

I do film capture with fixed and interchangeable lenses, and digitization later, especially digitization of older images, yet I have no pressing need for digital capture, and no photography customers to bill for the expense -- a used US$100 Minolta SR T 100 with 50mm f/2 lens can take some fine pictures and I'd have a long way to go in film costs to come close to the neatest digital competitor, price wise.

So please, tell us more -- please explore your dilemma with us, okay?

Peter Blaise Monahon peterblaise@yahoo.com
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


PS - If any of us KNEW any more than you know about Konica Minolta's future pans ...
 
S

samn

I am moving in reverse of everyone else. I have been shooting a Nikon Coolpix 885. It cannot give me the resolution I need. When I put the pencil to it, there is no way I can justify the investment in a digital slr. I can use my Minolta 35mm bodies and lenses, buy 2 years of film and developing,and buy a good quality film scanner all for around $2000.00 and have a more versatile system than the digital slr with one lens. I'm going back to film.
Sam
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
P

photoman

Samn. You have hit the nail on the head, I have just recentley brought a Minolta Scan Dual 3. and have been amazed at the quality I can get. this is the way to go, i have a dynex 5 with the 24-105 and a 70-300, and a 50mm 1.7. Lens with this kit I can wonderful pictures. I recently shot two rolls of 36ex films at a village fair and got 72 perfect quality shots some flash and some fill in flash all perfect I have been taking pictures for 50 years and had every camra there is and all formets from 5x4. 120. and 35mm. and I have never had such constistant results as with the Dynex 5 and the Dual 3 scanner. I also have a digatal Fugi but what is not talked about is the depth of field too much of it due to the small sensor size. until this is resolved and full frame size I will never go all the way digital. It is my regret that i never got a film scanner sooner. I am saving up for the new 5400. and maybe a dynex 9 the best SLR in World.
 

adesmith

New Member
>At last, some common sense. Unless your photos really MUST be on your editors screen within minutes of you taking them or you are losing business to other photographers in your area then why do people feel they must have a D-SLR ? Not a pro ? You probably don't need one then. It's just the latest buzzword toy that you tell yourself you have to have. Don't have a film scanner but want scanned images to upload to the web, then get them put onto a CD when you get your film dev'd. Hell they even do that at my local supermarket while I'm doing my weekly shop ! But if you REALLY must get rid of that money that burning such a hole in your pocket throw some of it my way !! Discuss.

Dynax 9 and 20 years in photoprocessing.
 
S

samn

Right now I am shooting two old Minolta Bodies and 4 lenses, filters and flash. I am getting more quality per image than I did with the digital because I am again stopping to compose and think instead of relying on taking a bunch of digital images and hoping for the best.
I can take my film to my local camera store, have it one hour developed and scanned to an indexed cd at approx 5 megabytes per image and another set of low resolution images for about $13.00. They are scanning with one of the new mega bucks Nikons and will work with me any way I want. Kodak's Photo CD did not work for me as all you get back on it (usually takes 4 days), is images in a resolution of approx 4 X 6 inches, and is slightly more money.
I'll use the Nikon Coolpix from now on as a backup and as a reference camera.
Sam
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
T

tuscanboy

Whilst I agree that Digital technology has plenty of potential for improvement, is has nonetheless already reached a very impressive standard, nearing that of film quality (and I would argue that the differences between the image resulting from each are just that, differences; not necessarily inferior or superior) Even the film industry who demand the highest quality in image recording, show films at most modern cinemas using Digital projectors, which although the reverse process of Digital photography, amounts to the same thing. Putting a time scale on this is very hard, but the end of film is nigh. The only people who will continue using it are those that refused to buy CDs and carried on with Vinyl and those who preferred long division with pen and paper than to use a calculator. The fact that Kodak must have invested the largest sum of money for decades on their DSLR, indicates the inevitable demise of film, and their interest in replacing the resulting revenue loss. I guess I'm not a purist photographer. I enjoy taking good pictures and showing them off, and I enjoy having greater involvement than simply pushing a button. I have owned an SLR camera of one type or another since I was 12 (25 years ago), and understand much of theory in picture taking. But ultimately you learn the most from shooting and seeing what comes out. This learning curve (which never really ends) is expensive and time consuming with film, and in some cases results in failing to capture an unrepeatable event. Maybe this is considered by some as good character building stuff, which makes a good photographer – I don’t. I have triplet 2 year old sons, and trying to capture them in a picture worthy of showing off takes a lot of shots. You simply don’t get the chance to cogitate over exposure, depth of field, composition etc. If you have ever seen a professional photographer take candid pictures of children, he will get through several rolls of film in one session. But he can afford to; his client is paying. I do not want to pay £50 for 4 lots of processing and printing and discover a week later that I have 5 really good shots. Digital photography has arrived and it opens up photography to the masses by allowing experimentation and learning quickly and cheaply.
 
P

psync

Hello Minoltians! I don't believe film will or is becoming a thing of the past. I for one continue shooting film over digital for now; however, I would love the convenience that digital offers such as a polaroid has. Imagine if the Apple computer system didn't offer networking capabilities such as the PC systems do and your inventory is all Apple based. Sure, you can save to mass storage device and transfer to another system, but how much more of this will you be willing to put up with? Incompatible systems? The analogy would be to buy a scanner, print the file, clean up the noise, purchase an OCR software...(what time is it now?) I just think Minolta is doing a disservice to its customers by not supporting the digital needs compatible with existing line of maxxum lens. The point I'm trying to make is that in this digital age, I want to go directly from camera to PhotoShop and have to drop-it-off; have it developed; pick up the prints; scan the negs; clean the files; etc. By the way have any of you taken portraits of close friends in a studio setup with softboxes, umbrellas...? Its so wonderful to see their faces "light up" to see the images immediately (everyone needs to have some fun)
 
S

samn

I agree with everything you are saying Steve. My problem is that I cannont justify or afford to update my photo equipment to a system that offers basically the same performance. Film will be around for a long time yet.
Eventually I will have to upgrade, but right now I would have to fork over $3500 low end, $5500. or more top end to get the same performance, lenses, accessories, and memory chips
Just like computers these prices will come down as new digital technology evolves. I'll just have to wait, but I'm not going to stop taking photos in the mean time.
 
T

tuscanboy

You're absolutely right Sam. In my case I needed some of the digital benfits now, and have jumped into Canon's bed. I'm a little sad that I've abandoned Minolta as I always felt that unlike Nikon or Canon they was more empathic with the Enthusiast market. I have actually kept one of the Dynax 7000i bodies and a couple of lenses as they had such a low trade in value, and when my boys are older I will be able to show them "how we used to take pictures". I know that cameras like the Canon 10D will be sub £500 within 3 years and hopefully this will entice Minolta into the arena, allowing the Minolta fans to have the choice of digital without scrapping everything they have got.
 
S

samn

I know this is not the correct place to discuss this, but how do you like the new Cannon DSLR? My local camera store is pushing hard to sell it to me with (I think) 35-70mm lens. $2000 + tax.
Meanwhile my Nikon 885 and Minolta SLR's keep chugging along.
Sam
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
T

tuscanboy

So far pretty impressed, I had already purchased a 135-400 Sigma APO lens and I bought a second hand Sigma 28-300 with the camera. The bodies over here cost £1300, so a little less over there. I'm probaly doing to swap the 28-300 for a new canon 28-200 USM as i'm a little disappointed with the quality of the sigma (the 170-400 is great though) I was lucky enough to borrow a friends 10D with a canon lens and the quality and focusing speed were fantastic. I'm still getting to grips with the camera in a creative capacity but in full and semi auto, it really is superb. One of the biggest advantages over the compact Fuji 6800 digital I previously used is shutter response. The fuji was fast but the canon is instant. within half an hour I had more great pictures of the boys than I had ever got from the Fuji, and would have cost a fortune in film and processing with the Minolta. In actual fact I didn't take that may shots to get the good results, it was just that I knew when I had got a good 'un so I stopped !!
 
U

Uksnapper

> [.steve evans (Tuscanboy). posted about his delight with his canon digital,whats that got to do with Minolta ??]
 

fergisan

Member
Don't want to get off topic here, but could any of you please check my thread on the Sigma lens dilemma for my Maxxum 9 and offer your opinions? Thanks, Brett
 
T

tuscanboy

Michael, nothing at all other than

1) photography
2) SLR Cameras
3) Digital Photograpy
4) Thread Heading = Digital SLR
5) Courtesy of answering previous question
6) not owning shares in Minolta and having the broadmindedness to acknowledge alternatives within this field
7)having the time and effort to contribute more than 18 words to this discussion

I could could continue, but will refrain.

Mr Uksnapper, I'll consider myself banished from this forum. You can rest easy, safe from any utterance of the words Canon, Nikon, Fuj........

Goodnight!
 
T

tuscanboy

Oh Micahel, sorry before I go

I'm also a regular contributor to the UK discussion forum for a little know English Sportscar company called TVR. I was lucky enough to own one of these prior to the arrival of the aforementioned triplets (hence the alias Tuscanboy). Like Minolta, TVR sometimes struggle to rise above the giants of Porsche and Ferrarri. But also like Minolta, no matter how much we love them, they sometimes could learn from the competition and we welcome input from these quarters - so don't simply dismiss contibutions from from contributors just because they have dared to use non-minolta equipment.

end of rant, goodbye.
 
U

Uksnapper

> [..Tuscanboy, Dont get so upset,I too use other cameras owning just the one minolta the dimage 7Hi although I also have Minolta spotmeter, colour meter and colour temperature meters !! cameras include Nikon, Contax, Yashica, Hasselblad, Arca and Cambo,all tools for specific tasks. I meant no offence when I asked what Canon had to do with Minolta,the right answer surly, should be nothing ! Have a great weekend Michael

..]
 

jamesdak

New Member
Well, i went to a digital camera for shooting my kids sports. Every weekend I would go through 3-4 rolls of film and only get a few good action shots. Now I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ-10 with a lens equivalent to a 35-420mm f/2.8. It's a 4 meg camera with a 4 frame burst mode. It works great for this purpose. Now for all other work I will continue to use film. In fact, I am currently upgrading my lenses with some choice primes. I recently bought the 100mm f/2.8 macro D, a 35mm f/2.0, and am awaiting delivery of a used 50mm f/1.7. Digital cannot economically come close to the quality I can get out of my SLRs.
 
Top